Jump to content

Talk:World Artistic Gymnastics Championships: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 29: Line 29:
::: 4) Both FIG's official editions which were published in 1981 and 2006 (see your links below) clearly ignores 1931 results and don't put results of 1931 event in the sections "World Championships results". It was a special gala event dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the FIG, but definitely not a official World Championships.
::: 4) Both FIG's official editions which were published in 1981 and 2006 (see your links below) clearly ignores 1931 results and don't put results of 1931 event in the sections "World Championships results". It was a special gala event dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the FIG, but definitely not a official World Championships.
::: Therefore I think my original solution was correct - I didn't add 1931 results into medal statistics but I wrote special note about controversial status of 1931 event. [[User:Hyperion82|Hyperion82]] ([[User talk:Hyperion82|talk]]) 09:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::: Therefore I think my original solution was correct - I didn't add 1931 results into medal statistics but I wrote special note about controversial status of 1931 event. [[User:Hyperion82|Hyperion82]] ([[User talk:Hyperion82|talk]]) 09:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Hyperion82, again, thank you for your thought on this. However, you make some errors.
::::1) Arguing over semantics and over the numbering of world championships can be, in essence, meaningless and superficial. What matters more is who showed up and how well they competed. Nevertheless, the FIG's official 100 Year 1981 publication '''DOES''' articulate a treatment of the 1931 World Championships on pages 84-85 of that publication, in the section of the publication devoted to World Championships, and even calls them a "World Championships". On page 84 of that publication, it was stated ''Following "agreements, objections, and discussions" this manifestation was called "World Championships".'''
::::2) It is true that from 1922 to 1978, regularly, the worlds were held only on even-numbered Olympic years, but before WWI, it was on every odd-numbered year, and after 1978, again on every odd-numbered year, but only until 1991, after which it was also held on Olympic years (in 1992 and 1996), and in 1994, there were '''TWO''' World Championships. After 2000, they have been held on '''EVERY''' non-Olympic year. The bigger, overarching truth here is that of '''CHANGE'''. How is 1931 not part of that?
::::3) There was no separation of team competition and all-around back then - it was ALL ONE COMPETITION. They merely didn't award team medals in 1931. So what? You still had a deeply competitive field of individuals (and whereas Alois Hudec is concerned, we ARE talking about INDIVIDUAL medals, not team ones). Additionally, there were 44 male competitors in 1931, compared to 30 in 1922, 48 in 1926, and 45 in 1930, so it was as deep or deeper than other Worlds during this era. Also, we are talking about the best competing against the best. This 1931 Worlds field was actually more competitive, in terms of having the most of the strongest, than some of the other World Championships during this era.
::::4) Bottom line, it WAS called a "World Championships" and just because it was unnumbered doesn't mean that it was "unofficial". "Unnumbered" and "unofficial" are NOT the same thing.[[Special:Contributions/2601:6C1:681:7A60:100:5940:C85D:84CA|2601:6C1:681:7A60:100:5940:C85D:84CA]] ([[User talk:2601:6C1:681:7A60:100:5940:C85D:84CA|talk]]) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:27, 10 May 2024

Multiple medalists

Are there any athletes who medaled in all 6(m), 4(w) apparatae (allaround and team not included) and 6+allround/4+allround? 213.149.62.160 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The article is in serious need of a cleanup. There are many statistics that do not serve the main purpose of the article. I suggest creating a separate article to list all these statistics. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-addition of Alois Hudec to Statistics - Multiple Gold Medalists section

I edited out a note that explained a rationale for Alois Hudec not being listed in the Statistics - Men's Multiple Gold Medalists section. The rationale was stated that due to various authorities not recognizing the 1931 Worlds as a true World Championships, that Hudec's medals at those game shouldn't be counted. In the page for this article that existed right before I made that edit, footnote 11 was listed as showing that in the 125th anniversary publication of the FIG, that the 1931 Worlds were said not to be an official worlds. It IS true that in the medalists section that exists on pages 43-52 on that publication[1], the 1931 Worlds were never listed, but this remains an omission that went unqualified in that publication. If there is no such official statement from the FIG that counteracts their specific claim that the 1931 Worlds were some sort of "World Championships"[2], even if "Logically, the manifestations of the 50th anniversary of the FIG cannot be placed among the official competitions", Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).: 85  I see no reason to completely negate Alois Hudec from this article section without a fuller explanation that also includes his own medal record. QuakerIlK (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is relevant to the edit that Hyperion82 made regarding this particular topic - an edit that reversed the edit that I made. As I explained on (Hyperion82's talk page), I am not going to get into an edit war about this, but I DO want to copy and paste what I wrote there to what I am writing here. Personally, I think that this is a discussion that should be had with the International Gymnastics Federation, themselves.
Hi there, Hyperion82. I would like to thank you for your interest in the interesting and problematic intersection of the abovenamed articles, issues, and person. I do not completely agree with your edits and your reversal of my edit, however there is a rationale for your having formed the edit the way that you did, and I am not going to get into an edit war with you about it.
I DO want you to consider, however, and this is something that I will add on the Talk page for the World Championships, that at these "1931 Worlds", the competitive field was VERY deep. Although there were only 21 individuals who contested for the all-around title, the all-around competition was a staggering display of the best of the era as there were 7 different individuals who either were or would become World or Olympic All-Around Champions, not including 1st-place finisher Heikki Savolainen: 2nd-place finisher, from CzechoSlovakia, Alois Hudec became "World All-Around Champion" at these games, 3rd-place finisher, from CzechoSlovakia, Jan Gajdos became WAAC at the 1938 Worlds, 5th-place finisher, from Italy, Romeo Neri became Olympic All-Around Champion at the next year's (1932) Olympics, 8th-place finisher, from Switzerland, Georges Miez was the reigning (1928) OAAC, 9th-place finisher, from Yugoslavia, Josip Primožič was the reigning WAAC from 1930, 10th-place finisher, from Yugoslavia, Leon Štukelj was the 1924 OAAC, and lastly, 16th-place finisher, from Yugoslavia, Peter Sumi was 1922 and 1926 WAAC. That was a deeply competitive field, for a World Championships, or for even an Olympics, really.
I would also add that, coincidentally enough, while there were 11 different World and Olympic gymnastics competitions prior to World War I (5 Olympics (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, and 1912) and 6 Worlds (1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, and 1913)), there were ALSO 11 different World and Olympic gymnastics competitions between World War I and World War II (5 Olympics (1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, and 1936) and 6 Worlds, if you count 1931 (1922, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1938)). It is therefore, as if by suggestion, that counting the 1931 Worlds, not only due to its deeply competitive field, but also due to what I just mentioned here in this paragraph, brings a meaningful symmetry to these two eras.QuakerIlK (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks you for well-thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, none of your two arguments really proves that the 1931 competition should be considered as official world championship. I completely agree that there was deeply competitive field with many strong participants. But how does this fit in with the official status of the competition? There can be deeply competitive field at other minor competitions (like World Cup or Grand Prix stages) as well. But it doesn't make them "official World Championships".
The second argument (about symmetry) seems much far-fetched to me (sorry for that). This seems more like a mere coincidence and a numbers game than anything serious. Of course, people in 1931 did not know about the upcoming World War II and could not organize this extraordinary championship simply "for symmetry".
Here are my arguments against non-recognition of 1931 event as official World Championships:
1) FIG (main international sporting body) clearly does not considered this competition as official World Championships. You can clearly see it by their official numeration of World Championships - 1931 events doesn't have an official number.
2) Starting from 1922 till 1978, World Championships were held every 4 years (with exception of 1942 and 1946 which were cancelled due to World War II). So, it quite logical that 9th World Championships was held in 1930 while 10th World Championships - in 1934 (not in 1931).
3) 1931 event was been held by different rules than previous and following World Championships. There were no team competition (which were held at all World Championships since 1903 till 1992). There were no awarded silver and bronze medals at apparatus (unlike all official World Championships).
4) Both FIG's official editions which were published in 1981 and 2006 (see your links below) clearly ignores 1931 results and don't put results of 1931 event in the sections "World Championships results". It was a special gala event dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the FIG, but definitely not a official World Championships.
Therefore I think my original solution was correct - I didn't add 1931 results into medal statistics but I wrote special note about controversial status of 1931 event. Hyperion82 (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion82, again, thank you for your thought on this. However, you make some errors.
1) Arguing over semantics and over the numbering of world championships can be, in essence, meaningless and superficial. What matters more is who showed up and how well they competed. Nevertheless, the FIG's official 100 Year 1981 publication DOES' articulate a treatment of the 1931 World Championships on pages 84-85 of that publication, in the section of the publication devoted to World Championships, and even calls them a "World Championships". On page 84 of that publication, it was stated Following "agreements, objections, and discussions" this manifestation was called "World Championships".
2) It is true that from 1922 to 1978, regularly, the worlds were held only on even-numbered Olympic years, but before WWI, it was on every odd-numbered year, and after 1978, again on every odd-numbered year, but only until 1991, after which it was also held on Olympic years (in 1992 and 1996), and in 1994, there were TWO World Championships. After 2000, they have been held on EVERY non-Olympic year. The bigger, overarching truth here is that of CHANGE. How is 1931 not part of that?
3) There was no separation of team competition and all-around back then - it was ALL ONE COMPETITION. They merely didn't award team medals in 1931. So what? You still had a deeply competitive field of individuals (and whereas Alois Hudec is concerned, we ARE talking about INDIVIDUAL medals, not team ones). Additionally, there were 44 male competitors in 1931, compared to 30 in 1922, 48 in 1926, and 45 in 1930, so it was as deep or deeper than other Worlds during this era. Also, we are talking about the best competing against the best. This 1931 Worlds field was actually more competitive, in terms of having the most of the strongest, than some of the other World Championships during this era.
4) Bottom line, it WAS called a "World Championships" and just because it was unnumbered doesn't mean that it was "unofficial". "Unnumbered" and "unofficial" are NOT the same thing.2601:6C1:681:7A60:100:5940:C85D:84CA (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ The Story Goes On: 125 Ans/Years Federation Internationale Gymnastique 1881-2006 (PDF) (in French and English). International Gymnastics Federation. pp. 43–52.
  2. ^ Frank L. Bare; no by-line.--> (ed.). years of the FIG-e.pdf The Story Goes On: 100 Years of the International Gymnastics Federation (PDF) (in French and English). International Gymnastics Federation. p. 84. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)